On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:04:49PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > True. However, if something is not explicitly forbidden by Policy (and > > this isn't), and it does not cause (obvious) harm to Debian as a whole > > (which this doesn't), there is no good reason why people should pretend > > it's a bad idea. > > This sounds very wrong, as if it would be ok to cause harm to some part > of Debian when it's not forbidden in Policy. Hmm. I don't know how, but you somehow managed to read the exact opposite in my words of the message I was trying to deliver :-) [...] > > native package; however, several of them also explicitly state the > > opinion that making a package native is perfectly okay, after having > > considered those downsides. That's pretty much what I was saying in my > > previous mail. > > Yes, though only after considering all the downsides, including having > these discussions and people requesting you to reconsider from time to time. Sure. I feel I should point out that my initial mail in this subthread was a reaction to a one-line statement that 'switching upstreams does not make a package native.' That I objected to, because of the lack of context, and the inherent feeling that, to me, seemed to be part of this message that this package had no business whatsoever of being a native package. I did not (and do not) defend making _this particular_ package a native one (I don't know enough about it either way), but was trying to discuss the more general issue here. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature